Transhumanism

[Oppressorion]

Relevant.

[New Sapienta]

I dislike how some of the advoacte treat it as a "fix-it" for everything and act like there will be no problems.

I do not oppose it, however.

[YellowApple]

Ah, so you're going to tell me - someone who makes a living working with, maintaining, deploying, and administering workstations and servers in high-stake healthcare environments where patient lives depend on me not screwing up - that I "don't know the faintest fucking thing about computing"?

Depends. Are you espousing the skiffy shit? Then yes, you pretty clearly don't know what you're talking about.

And you do?

[The Emerald Legion]

Depends. Are you espousing the skiffy shit? Then yes, you pretty clearly don't know what you're talking about.

The word Skiffy makes me think you don't know what you are talking about.

Oh wait... it isn't a word. It's a spelled out mispronunciation of a shortening of a word. That actually takes no less effort to type out than sci-fi, but severely lessens your ability to seem credible.

[Xsyne]

Depends. Are you espousing the skiffy shit? Then yes, you pretty clearly don't know what you're talking about.

And you do?

I am able to recognize my own ignorance.

[Arkinesia]

I generally dislike the idea less on strict ideological grounds and more on the obvious applications for widespread and dangerous abuse.

[Rainbows and Rivers]

Relevant.

The whole point of transhumanism is not to be bound by what you were born with.

[01248163264128256]

Make conciousness open source!

[Phocidaea]

Relevant.

The whole point of transhumanism is not to be bound by what you were born with.

Last I checked, not necessarily.

Same thing with "anarchy" - twisting definitions to make them seem more agreeable.

Many props to Oppressorion - that movie is a great fit here.

Old quote, but also this:

Transhumanism is either indistinguishable from tool use, in which case it is an utterly worthless word and has no need to exist as an independent concept, or it's insipid skiffy bullshit espoused by people who don't know the faintest fucking thing about computing, the mind, information storage, biology, mathematics, c, and a couple thousand other things.

[Rainbows and Rivers]

The whole point of transhumanism is not to be bound by what you were born with.

Last I checked, not necessarily.

Okay, fair enough. However, this holds true for most kinds of transhumanism, particularly the kind that's not grounded solely in biology. It doesn't matter what genes you have if you can hack off your arms and replace them with ones that are better than that of any human regardless of their genes.

Old quote, but also this:

Transhumanism is either indistinguishable from tool use, in which case it is an utterly worthless word and has no need to exist as an independent concept, or it's insipid skiffy bullshit espoused by people who don't know the faintest fucking thing about computing, the mind, information storage, biology, mathematics, c, and a couple thousand other things.

The first part of that isn't entirely wrong, but I would definitely argue that transhumanism that focuses on improvement of the mind, health, longevity, or happiness is fundamentally different from normal tool use.

The second part is unsupported drivel. If you want to bring up specific issues in any of those fields, go ahead and do so.

[Oppressorion]

Relevant.

The whole point of transhumanism is not to be bound by what you were born with.

On the contrary, genetic selection could easily be a form of transhumanism in that humanity as a whole gets better bodies. In any case, what it was intended to show was a 'transitive state' between artificially improved humans and normal ones, and how normal ones could be discriminated against - this stops being an issue if all humans are improved, of course. It also shows the potential dangers of overspecialisation (albeit briefly) with prenatal improvements (leading into all sorts of consent issues, might I add) and the pressure the improve humans bring on themselves. Again, most of these lessen as selection becomes more normal and relative intelligences remain the same, but still things to think about.

[Transhuman Proteus]

The whole point of transhumanism is not to be bound by what you were born with.

Last I checked, not necessarily.

Same thing with "anarchy" - twisting definitions to make them seem more agreeable.

Many props to Oppressorion - that movie is a great fit here.

Indeed, one can't discuss something like this without someone trotting out the same tired certain pieces of fiction like they are automatically valid arguments. Transhumanism? But Gattaca and Brave New World! Fiction has a well known streak of techno-pessimism since it is a lot easier to generate drama from "and technology made things bad in some way" than "technology made things better". Even generally techno-optimistic shows like Star Trek had the "fear genetic engineering" element in the form of Khan.

Discrimination and the like in Gattaca would be a social issue, not the an automatic side effect of embracing technology of that kind. Considering we have been just as capable of discriminating or not discriminating without genetic engineering it isn't an especially strong argument against the potential benefits of researching it and then utilizing it, doubly so since worst case scenarios are generally the least likely to occur. The far better response is "this could really help us, lets pursue this avenue. Problems if we succeed later on? Lets consider them and consider how we can change society so they don't eventuate, since those problems almost certainly will continue to occur whether we embrace this or not." Not "a fiction writer came up with the worst case scenario and it looked scary! Maybe we should quash this, even with potential benefits"

Old quote, but also this:

Transhumanism is either indistinguishable from tool use, in which case it is an utterly worthless word and has no need to exist as an independent concept, or it's insipid skiffy bullshit espoused by people who don't know the faintest fucking thing about computing, the mind, information storage, biology, mathematics, c, and a couple thousand other things.

The first part is questionable in any number of ways, the second part laughable if you don't want to bring up some examples. I mean, lord knows right, that the modern field of futurists and transhumanists are a bunch of individuals with no capable scientists amongst them? We should probably get guys like Kaku and Kurzweil on the phone and tell them they don't know the "faintest fucking thing" about any of that (specifically the fields they operate in).

[Oppressorion]

Indeed, one can't discuss something like this without someone trotting out the same tired certain pieces of fiction like they are automatically valid arguments. Transhumanism? But Gattaca and Brave New World! Fiction has a well known streak of techno-pessimism since it is a lot easier to generate drama from "and technology made things bad in some way" than "technology made things better". Even generally techno-optimistic shows like Star Trek had the "fear genetic engineering" element in the form of Khan.

I intended no such thing. What I linked to is a review of Gattaca, with significant and balanced discussion of the issues behind it. In fact, right at the start the narrator agrees with you - he points out numerous privacy laws in effect, and that we can't just ban all research or something silly like that. Indeed, at the end he classes it as a potential future, and by no means an inevitable one. It was the discussion related to it rather than the film itself that I was bringing up.

...How many people actually watched the video, rather than shouting "Ah-ha! Gattaca! Boo/Yay (delete as appropriate)!"

[The Truth and Light]

I would love technological modifications to my body, as long as I get to look and feel "natural", in a colloquial sense.

[Transhuman Proteus]

NO ONE IS FORCING YOU to be a cyborg.

Well, possibly for a time. But perhaps not being a cyborg will hurt my chances for a getting a job? What if regular humans start getting discriminated against over time? I'm sure in my lifetime it probably won't be a big deal, but my kids? Or my grandchildren's lifetimes? (If I have any, of course).

I don't any cyborgs, period. None. Zero. Nada. Zilch. The ramifications are too dangerous. I'd do just about anything to slow, halt, or destroy transhumanisms progress.

Ah, the old "I'm totally against it, I don't want to be forced to X. Huh, I wont be forced to? Then I'm totally against it because if I choose not to X I'll be left behind and that's not faiiiiir! * Self-centered Whiiiiiiine*".

One can only wonder if you are out there doing everything you can to halt or destroy technological progress in general - surely you're bombing Apple and Microsoft labs and car plants because they will develop tech that will be priced out of the range of lower classes for long periods and if you or your possibly lemon children reject tech they'll be left behind - go and get any good job without at least basic computer skills, or employing people with basic computer skills.

And you have to be destroying the modern education system in most places, since if everyone doesn't home school their kiddies the kids with proper educations will generally be doing better at getting good jobs and going places.

Oh yes, and you need to smash the states NOW. I mean, what happens if the state of the world shifts hugely in future and your illiterate Luddite offspring end up in a new Somalia. All those countries that aren't New Somalia are going to have citizens having a much better time of it then your poor descendants.

Indeed, one can't discuss something like this without someone trotting out the same tired certain pieces of fiction like they are automatically valid arguments. Transhumanism? But Gattaca and Brave New World! Fiction has a well known streak of techno-pessimism since it is a lot easier to generate drama from "and technology made things bad in some way" than "technology made things better". Even generally techno-optimistic shows like Star Trek had the "fear genetic engineering" element in the form of Khan.

I intended no such thing. What I linked to is a review of Gattaca, with significant and balanced discussion of the issues behind it. In fact, right at the start the narrator agrees with you - he points out numerous privacy laws in effect, and that we can't just ban all research or something silly like that. Indeed, at the end he classes it as a potential future, and by no means an inevitable one. It was the discussion related to it rather than the film itself that I was bringing up.

...How many people actually watched the video, rather than shouting "Ah-ha! Gattaca! Boo/Yay (delete as appropriate)!"

I have, it is nothing new and it pops up a lot in these kinds of debates. At the end of the day there are concerns there - plenty which have been expressed in far more substantive papers from actual scientists who are never linked, as opposed to the cheaper tactic of "it was a popular movie, people quote it a lot". But lets not kid ourselves that the scenario as postulated in Gattaca is in any way a certain outcome, or any more likely than all the very techno-optimistic scenarios some Transhumanists throw around, which people often counter by linking to people writing about Gattaca, or Gattaca itself.

[Phocidaea]

Well, possibly for a time. But perhaps not being a cyborg will hurt my chances for a getting a job? What if regular humans start getting discriminated against over time? I'm sure in my lifetime it probably won't be a big deal, but my kids? Or my grandchildren's lifetimes? (If I have any, of course).

I don't any cyborgs, period. None. Zero. Nada. Zilch. The ramifications are too dangerous. I'd do just about anything to slow, halt, or destroy transhumanisms progress.

Ah, the old "I'm totally against it, I don't want to be forced to X. Huh, I wont be forced to? Then I'm totally against it because if I choose not to X I'll be left behind and that's not faiiiiir! * Self-centered Whiiiiiiine*".

One can only wonder if you are out there doing everything you can to halt or destroy technological progress in general - surely you're bombing Apple and Microsoft labs and car plants because they will develop tech that will be priced out of the range of lower classes for long periods and if you or your possibly lemon children reject tech they'll be left behind - go and get any good job without at least basic computer skills, or employing people with basic computer skills.

And you have to be destroying the modern education system in most places, since if everyone doesn't home school their kiddies the kids with proper educations will generally be doing better at getting good jobs and going places.

Oh yes, and you need to smash the states NOW. I mean, what happens if the state of the world shifts hugely in future and your illiterate Luddite offspring end up in a new Somalia. All those countries that aren't New Somalia are going to have citizens having a much better time of it then your poor descendants.

I intended no such thing. What I linked to is a review of Gattaca, with significant and balanced discussion of the issues behind it. In fact, right at the start the narrator agrees with you - he points out numerous privacy laws in effect, and that we can't just ban all research or something silly like that. Indeed, at the end he classes it as a potential future, and by no means an inevitable one. It was the discussion related to it rather than the film itself that I was bringing up.

...How many people actually watched the video, rather than shouting "Ah-ha! Gattaca! Boo/Yay (delete as appropriate)!"

I have, it is nothing new and it pops up a lot in these kinds of debates. At the end of the day there are concerns there - plenty which have been expressed in far more substantive papers from actual scientists who are never linked, as opposed to the cheaper tactic of "it was a popular movie, people quote it a lot". But lets not kid ourselves that the scenario as postulated in Gattaca is in any way a certain outcome, or any more likely than all the very techno-optimistic scenarios some Transhumanists throw around, which people often counter by linking to people writing about Gattaca, or Gattaca itself.

I am willing to put a reasonable degree of faith in futuristic fictional portrayals like Gattaca because I tend to expect that the majority of people will inevitably use new technology for shit, seeing how much that's proven true over the last century (did you ever wonder why we had nuclear bombs before nuclear power plants? Huh.)

[Oppressorion]

I am willing to put a reasonable degree of faith in futuristic fictional portrayals like Gattaca because I tend to expect that the majority of people will inevitably use new technology for shit, seeing how much that's proven true over the last century (did you ever wonder why we had nuclear bombs before nuclear power plants? Huh.)

...Because nuclear power was harnessed during WWII, when the DoD was willing to fund new weapons and could outbid power companies (not that there was even a power crisis at the time, so less demand)?

[Transhuman Proteus]

Change is not always a bad thing you know. If defeating death is change then I fully embrace it, Dying sucks balls. It's ineviteble and is no more dangerous than cars or the cell phone. A trans humanist will simply have easier and quicker access to their technology than others. Why stick around with hardware that routinely breaks down when we have the power to surpass it?

Death is essential. You can't live forever...it would be maddening. People and machines should not integrate...I don't want to be a borg, thanks.

Done a lot of living forever have you?

And it seems simple - if one day far in the future humans found themselves able to prolong their lives indefinitely somehow and then started finding they didn't want to live anymore after hundreds or even thousands of years you know what they could do? Stop living. Pull the plug, not go to their next rejuvenation appointment, book a shuttle into the sun, drink the best whiskey the future has to offer while waiting for their "permanent sleep" pills to do their work while watching the sun set.

For my part - I'm not scared of death. But I rather love being alive, so much so that I'd like to keep on being alive for as long as I like, which is definitely longer than the regrettably short period currently available to us. And that is if I'm not struck down by unexpected death - car crash, cancer, walking in on a violent burglar etc. My days are generally full, and even if I keep up the pace of life I've got now till the point of death (unlikely, since a fair chunk of my later life will likely be limited by the effects of aging) there is still untold amounts I will never do, see, experience, read etc which I would like to. Which is to say - just because you apparently find life so boring that you can't bear the thought of it going on past some arbitrary point you've decided is good (what, 80-100 years?) doesn't mean everyone else will.

[Divair]

Death is essential. You can't live forever...it would be maddening. People and machines should not integrate...I don't want to be a borg, thanks.

Done a lot of living forever have you?

And it seems simple - if one day far in the future humans found themselves able to prolong their lives indefinitely somehow and then started finding they didn't want to live anymore after hundreds or even thousands of years you know what they could do? Stop living. Pull the plug, not go to their next rejuvenation appointment, book a shuttle into the sun, drink the best whiskey the future has to offer while waiting for their "permanent sleep" pills to do their work while watching the sun set.

For my part - I'm not scared of death. But I rather love being alive, so much so that I'd like to keep on being alive for as long as I like, which is definitely longer than the regrettably short period currently available to us. And that is if I have if I'm not struck down by unexpected death - car crash, cancer, walking in on a violent burgler etc. My days are general full, and even if I keep up the pace of life I've got now till the point of death (unlikely, since a fair chunk of my later life will likely be limited by the effects of aging) there is still untold amounts I will never do, see, experience, read etc which I would like to. Which is to say - just because you apparently find life so boring that you can't bear the thought of it going on past some arbitrary point you've decided is good (what, 80-100 years?) doesn't mean everyone else will.

This is exactly how I feel about life extension.

[Transhuman Proteus]

Ah, the old "I'm totally against it, I don't want to be forced to X. Huh, I wont be forced to? Then I'm totally against it because if I choose not to X I'll be left behind and that's not faiiiiir! * Self-centered Whiiiiiiine*".

One can only wonder if you are out there doing everything you can to halt or destroy technological progress in general - surely you're bombing Apple and Microsoft labs and car plants because they will develop tech that will be priced out of the range of lower classes for long periods and if you or your possibly lemon children reject tech they'll be left behind - go and get any good job without at least basic computer skills, or employing people with basic computer skills.

And you have to be destroying the modern education system in most places, since if everyone doesn't home school their kiddies the kids with proper educations will generally be doing better at getting good jobs and going places.

Oh yes, and you need to smash the states NOW. I mean, what happens if the state of the world shifts hugely in future and your illiterate Luddite offspring end up in a new Somalia. All those countries that aren't New Somalia are going to have citizens having a much better time of it then your poor descendants.



I have, it is nothing new and it pops up a lot in these kinds of debates. At the end of the day there are concerns there - plenty which have been expressed in far more substantive papers from actual scientists who are never linked, as opposed to the cheaper tactic of "it was a popular movie, people quote it a lot". But lets not kid ourselves that the scenario as postulated in Gattaca is in any way a certain outcome, or any more likely than all the very techno-optimistic scenarios some Transhumanists throw around, which people often counter by linking to people writing about Gattaca, or Gattaca itself.

I am willing to put a reasonable degree of faith in futuristic fictional portrayals like Gattaca because I tend to expect that the majority of people will inevitably use new technology for shit, seeing how much that's proven true over the last century (did you ever wonder why we had nuclear bombs before nuclear power plants? Huh.)

Because like a number of things progress in that field was driven by wartime interests? And more positive applications for it came later?

What other new technology are we talking about?

[Britannic Realms]

Never. You don't need to fix something that's not broken. The human body works perfectly well already and there is no need to go and insult it by taking one's consciousness elsewhere. We are getting to the point in our history where we can start to pile manual labour on to the shoulders of robots, therefore mechanical enhancements are not needed as we will just be the thinkers, not the labourers.

[The Truth and Light]

Never. You don't need to fix something that's not broken. The human body works perfectly well already and there is no need to go and insult it by taking one's consciousness elsewhere. We are getting to the point in our history where we can start to pile manual labour on to the shoulders of robots, therefore mechanical enhancements are not needed as we will just be the thinkers, not the labourers.

Psssh. Cancer? What is that lol

[Divair]

The human body works perfectly well already

Says who?

[Transhuman Proteus]

Never. You don't need to fix something that's not broken. The human body works perfectly well already and there is no need to go and insult it by taking one's consciousness elsewhere. We are getting to the point in our history where we can start to pile manual labour on to the shoulders of robots, therefore mechanical enhancements are not needed as we will just be the thinkers, not the labourers.

If we insult the human body what will it do? Take its mitt and go home?

Plus, the human body contains any number of flaws and inefficiencies - never mind the the potential for disease and other ailments (cancer, asthma, rheumatism, dementia...) Why not go to guys and girls designing new planes and cars and ships today and say "guys, guy, guys, no. Our existing vehicles do their job don't they? Why improve on that? Who needs greater fuel economy, improved safety, greater reliability, more speed and carry capacity etc?"

[Ordya]

Personally, I approve. <software> 2.0 is better than 1.0; the same goes for hardware. As our minds expand, so should our physical forms.

That's why we have this thing called, "evolution."